Is MetroLink a success?
On the Yes on Proposition A website, they say “MetroLink is one of the most successful light rail systems in the country with 70,000 riders per day on a typical weekday.” We’ll take that as fact, even though Metro’s most recent annual report (pdf here, see page 78) puts weekday ridership at 58,272. So does that make MetroLink successful? That depends upon one’s definition of success.
In 2006 and prior years, MetroLink ridership was about 44,000 a year. With the opening of a second line, which has brought Washington University, Clayton, and Maplewood into MetroLink’s service area, ridership increased, but not proportionate to our investment. The added passengers have been very expensive compared to those served by the rest of the system. So you can’t call MetroLink a success in terms of what our recent investments have brought us.
How about compared to other cities? Since cities vary widely in size, the meaningful way to compare them is daily boardings per mile. That is to say, a system with 50 miles of track ought to serve twice as many passengers as one with 25 miles of track. How does St. Louis stack up in that measure? According to a summary in Wikipedia, not well. The most successful line in America, in Boston, has a daily ridership of nearly 8,500 passengers per mile. Minneapolis carries nearly 2,700 passengers per mile. In Philadelphia, they carry nearly 1,600 passengers per mile. St. Louis is way down the list, with just 1,252 passengers per mile. So by that measure, we certainly aren’t successful. And of course, if we expand MetroLink to suburban areas where ridership will be low, we will drop farther in this measure of success.
So how exactly is MetroLink successful? Well, if you stand at North Hanley station in the hours just before a baseball game, you can see lots of people in red shirts boarding the train. So I guess it’s a success in the “Gee, Bob, that’s a lot of people getting on that train” measure. But by any meaningful measure, MetroLink is a costly failure that must be stopped.
That’s why Citizens for Betters Transit believes that people who depend on our transit system should vote no on Proposition A. Metro needs to return with a reasonable proposal: A small increase in operating subsidy, no rail expansion, and implementation of a 21st century bus system. That is a transit system that could call itself a success.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
You are such a cheat to the St. Louis area. MetroLink IS successful. You are the one that is lying! The general public is seeing who is telling the truth and by your donations, Citizens for Modern Transit is getting more money and you only have 2 contributors. Because the public knows who is telling the truth. Call-a-Ride is also good. Are you out there looking for times to see when ridership is down, and not the rush hour when ridership is high? The trains are PACKED DURING RUSH HOUR!!!! Your conspiracy smells like a huge landfill!! I get my figures from the REAL world where people WORK!!! Do you care about the handicapped? Or are you GLAD that Dr. King got shot!!!! I don’t trust psychics!!! And Miss Cleo is a dirtbag!!
March 8th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Do the numbers you quote include only Missouri or both Missouri and Illinois miles? The reason this matters is that segments of the Metrolink line in Illinois that have low ridership levels were requested and paid for by the local municipalities and state and not a result of Metro/EWGCG planning or prioritization. You would need to look at Missouri and the original Illinois line mileage to get an accurate picture of where Metro/EWGCG planning has gotten.
Better check you facts and figures.
Facts and figures come from Metro’s annual report. The real budget buster isn’t the Illinois line, it’s the Cross-County extension. If they hadn’t built that, they wouldn’t need the tax hike they’re requesting today.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:37 am
St. Louis isn’t as big as other cities with light rail systems (New York, Chicago, San Francisco) but St. Louis spreads out like they do. Places served by expanding MetroLink would be comprised of riders who work there probably more than those living there. Let’s be honest. Certain areas don’t want minorities from the city or North County coming out to their community. The reality is that very few people live close to their jobs. They have to get to work though.
What do you mean by a 21st century bus system? What St. Louis needs is less selfish and divisive thinking and voting.
I can’t speak to the motives of other opponents, only to my own. And I can tell you this: By choice, my family moved from a nearly 100% white suburban area (Creve Coeur) to a 50/50 urban one (Ferguson). While I’m sure some are against it because of the reason you state, I personally have never met such a person.
As to the need to get people to work, true. The problem is, because St. Louis does not have any highly concentrated employment centers that are large enough to support a rail line, you can’t use rail to meet that need. In fact, it is nearly impossible to meet that need through any form of transit.
What I mean by a 21st century bus system is one which employs technology to make riding the bus an efficient experience. I don’t mind that the bus only comes once an hour, just so long as I can accurately determine where the bus is so that I don’t miss it. Right now, riding a bus means you have to get to the stop long before the scheduled arrival, just in case it passes by early. Real-time tracking, with signs at the stops and with information available on the internet, is what makes the bus useful for people who value their time. And of course, there’s BRT.
Sadly, what Metro has done with transit is no different than what happens with many things in St. Louis: We have separate and very unequal systems. Improving the bus system, the transit workhorse which serves the vast majority of transit dependent people, is a lot more important to me than providing a way for Chesterfield residents to get a cheap ride to a baseball game.
March 17th, 2010 at 5:20 am
From a functional and technical stand point, yes it is successful. But look, any time something has to ’sponge’ off of so many who don’t have any direct and often NO benefit at all, how can that be deemed a success? Certainly no private sector business would be able to do the same. And as for the arguement that employers benefit by the service, yeah, I guess so, at all tax payers expense! What kind of public transit did the early pioneers take? Who subsidized them? Come on people! Pull yourselves up by the boot straps and use what God gave you to be self sufficient. When you do this we’ll all feel better.